CA6: Michigan’s state forfeiture law doesn’t deprive due process after an officer seizes money

Officers can issue a notice of forfeiture under Michigan law, and the person subject to the forfeiture has a valid state remedy, and that satisfies due process. “Officer Jones’s testimony is troubling, and municipalities should take care to operate within the confines of the law so as not to abuse their power, especially when acting under provisions as draconian as administrative forfeiture. However, the Michigan statute does not establish a federal constitutional right and Langston could have challenged the lack of connection to narcotics activity postdeprivation had he filed a claim in accordance with the statute. Thus, assuming an adequate showing of municipal responsibility, Langston has not shown that the alleged policy of ignoring the CSA’s requirement that the property sought to be forfeited be connected to a controlled substance violates a federal constitutional right.” Langston v. Charter Township of Redford, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13884 (6th Cir. August 6, 2015).*

Defense counsel did not file a motion to suppress his stop near a grow operation in a field or pictures on his cell phone. There was a factual basis for the stop, and the pictures on his cell phone were less prejudicial to him than the testimony from his codefendant putting him at the grow operation. Rivera v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103666 (W.D.Tex. August 6, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Forfeiture, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.